Roger Ver gave up US passport in favor of St. Kitts last year.

Share this story

A well-known entrepreneur, often dubbed "Bitcoin Jesus"—who famously renounced his American citizenship last year—was denied a visa on Tuesday to re-enter the United States to attend an upcoming Bitcoin conference in Miami.

According to Roger Ver’s tweets, it was his third attempt to re-enter in eight days. Ver, who on occasion wears a T-shirt that reads "borders are imaginary lines," lambasted consular officials at the US Embassy in Barbados, where he made his application.

an investment in designated real estate with a value of at least US$ 400,000 plus payment of various registration and other fees (the Real-Estate Option), or a contribution to the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (a public charity) to the amount of between US$ 250,000 and US$ 450,000, depending on the number of dependants included in the application (the SIDF Contribution Option)

Some wealthy American citizens renounce their passports as a way to avoid paying federal income taxes. The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

On Wednesday, one immigration lawyer, Ashwin Sharma, wrote on his blog:

Interestingly, Mr. Ver was denied under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which states, “Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…” In short, this section of the INA presumes every applicant for a visa to America intends to eventually reside in America. It is the burden of each applicant to demonstrate that this is not the case…

…

It is strange then, to say the least, that Mr. Ver was denied by the U.S. Consular General, Barbados, under a regulation that requires he prove his intent to depart the U.S. when he appears to have already done so.

Further Reading

After successfully gaining his own St. Kitts passports, Ver started PassportsForBitcoin.com, which was shut down by the local authorities within months. The domain, which Ver owns, now redirects to a law firm that helps with "residence and citizenship planning."

In 2002, Ver was sentenced to 10 months in prison after being convicted of federal charges of selling explosives on eBay. After he completed his probation in 2006, Ver moved to Japan. From 1999 until 2012, he was the CEO of MemoryDealers.com.

In July 2014, Ver donated $150,000 to the legal defense fund of Ross Ulbricht, a fellow libertarian who is accused of founding and operating the Silk Road. Ulbricht’s criminal trial is scheduled to begin on January 13, 2015 in New York.

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

In 2002, Ver was sentenced to 10 months in prison after being convicted of federal charges of selling explosives on eBay. After he completed his probation in 2006, Ver moved to Japan. From 1999 until 2012, he was the CEO of MemoryDealers.com.----

The dude is a convicted criminal {i.e.. an undesirable), why should he be let in?

On the other hand, he's a criminal and a douche besides, so I can't feel bad for him.

Anyone who purchases a citizenship from one nation and then renounces citizenship for his nation of origin is going to be kind of iffy. He's buying access instead of going the normal route of actually living in a given country, learning something of the culture, and then taking whatever test and oath are required to gain citizenship. There's no indication from that process that he's actually loyal to St. Kitts or integrated into its culture, and given that he's lived there for a relatively short period of time and presumably has friends and family in the US, I would also question whether he has strong enough ties to not only merit but to essentially guarantee his return.

Yeh, having applied for US Visa in the past, I think there's one part that states if you have a criminal record, there's a chance you won't be allowed to enter. Considering he was caught selling explosives, somewhat of a red flag in this age of heightened alert (an alert which may be right or wrong) it's not entirely surprising!

If a person has relatives that live in the United States, that is often seen as a predictor that they will likely end up staying with them instead of returning to his/her home country. If this were any other person without US citizenship but with ample relatives in the country, I would expect equal difficulties in obtaining a tourist visa.

I don't think his wealth and former US citizenship should afford him special treatment.

The dude is a convicted criminal {i.e.. an undesirable), why should he be let in?

The rules may be a little different for people who were convicted as natural US citizens and then changed citizenship to another country. Usually, the presence of a felony would be the stated reason to deny entry, but that's because it's usually committed in another country by someone not of US nationality.

On the other hand, he's a criminal and a douche besides, so I can't feel bad for him.

Anyone who purchases a citizenship from one nation and then renounces citizenship for his nation of origin is going to be kind of iffy. He's buying access instead of going the normal route of actually living in a given country, learning something of the culture, and then taking whatever test and oath are required to gain citizenship. There's no indication from that process that he's actually loyal to St. Kitts or integrated into its culture, and given that he's lived there for a relatively short period of time and presumably has friends and family in the US, I would also question whether he has strong enough ties to not only merit but to essentially guarantee his return.

He's being denied because he's a criminal not because of the way he obtained citizenship.

That's not what's suggested in the article. Ties back home are a major part of entry into many countries. They don't want you staying beyond your visa time, and solid reasons to return home are evidence that you won't.

If a person has relatives that live in the United States, that is often seen as a predictor that they will likely end up staying with them instead of returning to his/her home country. If this were any other person without US citizenship but with ample relatives in the country, I would expect equal difficulties in obtaining a tourist visa.

I don't think his wealth and former US citizenship should afford him special treatment.

Many people that visit the US do so specifically to visit relatives and they have no problem whatsoever getting a visa. In this case he's being denied entry because he's a criminal.

The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

Almost unique, but not quite. I believe Ethiopia in the only other country to require citizens to pay taxes when living in outside the country.

Any reason why this isn't the norm? You're a citizen of the nation. You get specific rights and services from the government, and by maintaining your citizenship you are demonstrating that you expect to receive those benefits in the future, if you aren't already using them while outside of the nation. If you don't want the services, you stop paying for them by canceling your subscription citizenship.

The US regularly rejects tourist visa applications all around the world. You just need to drive past the US embassy in many third world counties to see the massive lines of people applying (vs the number that are granted) to get an idea of how mundane this news is. Most americans are oblivious to the us visa process because it is something they never have to deal with. No one is entitled to enter the US (or any other country) this fellow is just discovering that.

On the other hand, he's a criminal and a douche besides, so I can't feel bad for him.

Anyone who purchases a citizenship from one nation and then renounces citizenship for his nation of origin is going to be kind of iffy. He's buying access instead of going the normal route of actually living in a given country, learning something of the culture, and then taking whatever test and oath are required to gain citizenship. There's no indication from that process that he's actually loyal to St. Kitts or integrated into its culture, and given that he's lived there for a relatively short period of time and presumably has friends and family in the US, I would also question whether he has strong enough ties to not only merit but to essentially guarantee his return.

This. Very well put. Any person who's not a US Resident or Citizen, and who's applying for a visitor's Visa, has the burden of proof to US consular offices and border protection that he has strong ties with his country of residence and does not intend to overstay in the US. This guy is highly suspect on these accounts and was rightly denied entry.

Some wealthy American citizens renounce their passports as a way to avoid paying federal income taxes.

One small nit to pick, if I may. A passport != citizenship. If an American citizen goes to an immigration office and turns in his passport, that means nothing. A passport is just documentation of which country you are a citizen. The move you're referring to is renouncing citizenship. As a tax dodge, it's a very serious one. Renouncing US citizenship to avoid paying federal income taxes is no joke and is not easily undone.

The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

Almost unique, but not quite. I believe Ethiopia in the only other country to require citizens to pay taxes when living in outside the country.

Any reason why this isn't the norm? You're a citizen of the nation. You get specific rights and services from the government, and by maintaining your citizenship you are demonstrating that you expect to receive those benefits in the future, if you aren't already using them while outside of the nation. If you don't want the services, you stop paying for them by canceling your subscription citizenship.

My government doesn't take anything from me, nor do I give them anything when I live in another country. Why would I pay taxes then?

Some wealthy American citizens renounce their passports as a way to avoid paying federal income taxes.

One small nit to pick, if I may. A passport != citizenship. If an American citizen goes to an immigration office and turns in his passport, that means nothing. A passport is just documentation of which country you are a citizen. The move you're referring to is renouncing citizenship. As a tax dodge, it's a very serious one. Renouncing US citizenship to avoid paying federal income taxes is no joke and is not easily undone.

A passport identifies you as a citizen of a nation. Generally, a nation will only give a passport to a citizen.

The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

Almost unique, but not quite. I believe Ethiopia in the only other country to require citizens to pay taxes when living in outside the country.

Any reason why this isn't the norm? You're a citizen of the nation. You get specific rights and services from the government, and by maintaining your citizenship you are demonstrating that you expect to receive those benefits in the future, if you aren't already using them while outside of the nation. If you don't want the services, you stop paying for them by canceling your subscription citizenship.

My government doesn't take anything from me, nor do I give them anything when I live in another country. Why would I pay taxes then?

You have consular services available to you, and it might be a little icky to attach a fee to representing you in the case of unjust imprisonment (by your home country's standards). That said, such services are rounding error in a nation's budget which is why most nations have a pay-where-you-earn attitude toward taxes.

Some wealthy American citizens renounce their passports as a way to avoid paying federal income taxes.

One small nit to pick, if I may. A passport != citizenship. If an American citizen goes to an immigration office and turns in his passport, that means nothing. A passport is just documentation of which country you are a citizen. The move you're referring to is renouncing citizenship. As a tax dodge, it's a very serious one. Renouncing US citizenship to avoid paying federal income taxes is no joke and is not easily undone.

A passport identifies you as a citizen of a nation. Generally, a nation will only give a passport to a citizen.

Right. I get what passports are, why you would have one, and how you get one. My point was that the passport does not make you a citizen, its a symbol of your citizenship. Recent estimates peg the number of Americans without a passport at around 66%. So does that mean that they're not citizens? Of course not, they just don't have a passport.

Renouncing or giving up your passport is not what you must do to avoid federal income taxes abroad if you're a US citizen, you must renounce your citizenship.

The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

Almost unique, but not quite. I believe Ethiopia in the only other country to require citizens to pay taxes when living in outside the country.

Any reason why this isn't the norm? You're a citizen of the nation. You get specific rights and services from the government, and by maintaining your citizenship you are demonstrating that you expect to receive those benefits in the future, if you aren't already using them while outside of the nation. If you don't want the services, you stop paying for them by canceling your subscription citizenship.

My government doesn't take anything from me, nor do I give them anything when I live in another country. Why would I pay taxes then?

You actually receive lots of benefits by virtue of being an American citizen, but they are generally the type of benefit that you only receive when you need them. Say, for example, you get kidnapped in your resident country, the first call your stateside family should make is to the local embassy.

There is also something called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, which excludes from taxation the first $100,800 of earned income in a foreign country (pegged to inflation each year) as long as you meet a certain set of residency requirements.

My government doesn't take anything from me, nor do I give them anything when I live in another country. Why would I pay taxes then?

Because if you are a US citizen, you are the property of your government.

I think having paid the ludicrous fee to buy his freedom from the US government (it charges a substantial portion of your worldwide wealth for it to give up its claim to owning you) is ample evidence that he was not a risk of becoming an illegal immigrant hiding from INS and working as an undocumented farm laborer.

how is this evidence of anything? in this proposed setup (after paying his get-out-of-US-taxes one time bill to the other country), he could perfectly well just waltz right back in and live here while never having to pay taxes here again. not that living here is the end-all-be-all of human civilization, but all this is striking me as having your cake and wanting to eat it too.

My government doesn't take anything from me, nor do I give them anything when I live in another country. Why would I pay taxes then?

Because if you are a US citizen, you are the property of your government.

I think having paid the ludicrous fee to buy his freedom from the US government (it charges a substantial portion of your worldwide wealth for it to give up its claim to owning you) is ample evidence that he was not a risk of becoming an illegal immigrant hiding from INS and working as an undocumented farm laborer.

how is this evidence of anything? in this proposed setup (after paying his get-out-of-US-taxes one time bill to the other country), he could perfectly well just waltz right back in and live here while never having to pay taxes here again. not that living here is the end-all-be-all of human civilization, but all this is striking me as having your cake and wanting to eat it too.

Isn't there the part where he'd be required to pay taxes even if he no longer lived in the US?